Why Democrats Voted for Trump

[Nakosis]

For decades, researchers pointed out that shifting demographics—including the tendency among those with advanced degrees to move away from where they grew up—our communities have grown more ideologically homogenous. More and more, we live among people who vote like we do. According to the most recent election data, nearly half of us—48%—reside in what’s known as “landslide county,” where 60% or more of the population votes for the same candidate. In 1976, that number was 27%, according to Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing, the authors of the 2008 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart.

I thought this was interesting. As higher educated people move to the big city seeking jobs, it gives more power to those left behind through the electoral college.

To add texture to demographic generalities—non-college educated whites versus minorities, rural versus urban—TIME sent three correspondents to five counties scattered across Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. They looked at counties that had voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 and flipped for Trump in 2016, but the individuals interviewed were met at random: A correctional officer waiting at an auto body shop; a young women off to pick up her kids at the school bus; a guy operating a table saw in his front yard.

Voices from Democratic Counties Where Trump Won Big

 

[tytlyf]

Not sure about the headline. I think it's normal for people to want to live around like-minded people. I'd say this has more to do with economic situation than just people living where others like them live.

Red states have their blue areas, usually metropolitan. Just like blue states have their red areas, usually rural.

The higher the education level of a voter, the more chance they'll vote democratic. Which explains why Doctors and people with Master's degrees vote democratic over republican. (of course some of the wealthy vote republican for the tax breaks, but that's more of a greedy thing versus agreeing with the ideology of the party)

 

[metis]

Here in Michigan, I live in a county well known for its "Reagan Democrats", and so many here are not happy, to say the least, with all the jobs lost through automation, outsourcing, and trade imbalances, and they simply are angry with both parties for doing next to nothing to rectify this. And then there's the rising costs of post-high school education and medical coverage to the point that there's no feeling whatsoever that their kids will have it even anywhere near on par with the parents.

IOW, the feeling is that we are on a gradual down-hill slide whereas both parties are much more worried about getting reelected and accumulating more millions of $.

 

[RedDragon94]

For decades, researchers pointed out that shifting demographics—including the tendency among those with advanced degrees to move away from where they grew up—our communities have grown more ideologically homogenous. More and more, we live among people who vote like we do. According to the most recent election data, nearly half of us—48%—reside in what’s known as “landslide county,” where 60% or more of the population votes for the same candidate. In 1976, that number was 27%, according to Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing, the authors of the 2008 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart.

I thought this was interesting. As higher educated people move to the big city seeking jobs, it gives more power to those left behind through the electoral college.

To add texture to demographic generalities—non-college educated whites versus minorities, rural versus urban—TIME sent three correspondents to five counties scattered across Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. They looked at counties that had voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 and flipped for Trump in 2016, but the individuals interviewed were met at random: A correctional officer waiting at an auto body shop; a young women off to pick up her kids at the school bus; a guy operating a table saw in his front yard.

Voices from Democratic Counties Where Trump Won Big

I gave it the useful rating. It seems like what I gather from Naomi Hines in the article is that modern Democrats don't understand that their party changed at some point. There was a flip.

I guess it all has to do with whether or not the government should have say in people's lives or not.

 

[RedDragon94]

I don't know man, after reading the rest I think people believe in Trump.

 

[YmirGF]

I don't know man, after reading the rest I think people believe in Trump.

It could well be the opposite too, in that they do not believe the Democrats have satisfactory answers and decided to go with a dangerous wild card.

While cutting the lawn I was mulling how, exactly, Hillary could have possibly lost the Electoral College. She knew the popular vote means nothing. It didn't help that every article on the topic prior to the election gave her a massive victory in the Electoral College. One article even mused, "Why bother holding the election? Hillary has this in the bag!"

 

[Nakosis]

I don't know man, after reading the rest I think people believe in Trump.

I was kind of curious how the electoral college affects elections.

A low population state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes. Gives these low pop areas more clout.

There are some Democrats in the article saying why they did flip. Most seem to express a dissatisfaction with Obama.

I'll have to watch your video later.

 

[columbus]

low population state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes. Gives these low pop areas more clout.

Trump got more votes in San Francisco than Wyoming.
Make of that what you will.
Tom

 

[Nakosis]

Trump got more votes in San Francisco than Wyoming.
Make of that what you will.
Tom

I read somewhere that a voter in Wyoming has almost 4 times the say as a voter in Calif in presidential elections.

 

[Stevicus]

I gave it the useful rating. It seems like what I gather from Naomi Hines in the article is that modern Democrats don't understand that their party changed at some point. There was a flip.

I guess it all has to do with whether or not the government should have say in people's lives or not.

Another reason might be the Democrats' support of the labor movement and gaining new voters during the second wave of immigration which occurred following the Civil War. The Great Depression was largely blamed on Republicans and was considered proof that Republican economic ideals were disastrous. FDR's New Deal and other Federal programs helped turn it around, bringing America back from the doldrums to one of the wealthiest, most robust, and most affluent economies in history. This was America at its peak, from about 1945-1970, most of which was under Democratic rule or at least under the legacy of Democratic policies.

The Republicans couldn't really argue with this, as they were out of power and had to reinvent themselves into what they are now. For one thing, they abandoned isolationism and became even more ardently anti-communist and interventionist, while accusing the Democrats of being too soft on communism. That's how they got their way back into power. The dispute wasn't over economics or government having say over people's lives, but more over how much say America should have over the world.

The Republicans were also able to capitalize on internal strife within the Democratic Party itself, while the GOP was more unified. But even back then, the Republicans supported far more progressive policies than they do now. Even as bad as Nixon might have seemed, he would be considered "too liberal" by the GOP today, which says a lot about their politics nowadays.

I think the Democrats wasted a golden opportunity after the fall of Nixon. I liked Carter, but I thought he was too weak, as were most of the Democrats who let Reagan and his cult walk all over them.

 

[columbus]

I read somewhere that a voter in Wyoming has almost 4 times the say as a voter in Calif in presidential elections.

Yep.

The system for choosing presidents was rigged by the Founding Fathers. They were wealthy rural white male slavers, generally. Similar people still have multiples of the electoral college power of the diverse people living in the more representative states.
At the time, it wasn't such a big deal. The president wasn't very influential in the daily lives of the majority. He was expected to represent the entire United States to foreigners. The individual states were much more sovereign than they are now.

The FF would have been horrified by the concept of a Federal income tax. Or a national health care system. Women or blacks voting?!

Things are very different 240 years later. The big, diverse, states now represent the USA far more than the small homogeneous states. And the president is now expected to lead the people, not just represent the states to foreigners.

It's way past time for the president to become an elected position. And there's no need for the US Constitution to change, it already allows states to choose democracy. And many have.
National Popular Vote
Of course, it's easy to see why people who benefit from rigged systems would oppose democracy. And they do. Republicans haven't gotten a candidate elected freely since the 80's.
Tom

 

[Akivah]

I read somewhere that a voter in Wyoming has almost 4 times the say as a voter in Calif in presidential elections.

Let's run the numbers and see.
Population (2018) of CA is 39,776,830 and it has 55 electoral votes. Thus it takes 723,215 to get one EV.
Population (2018) of WY is 573,720 and it has 3 EV. Thus it takes 191,240 to get one EV.

Dividing means 3.78 CA people equals 1 WY person. Your quote was correct.

 

[idav]

For decades, researchers pointed out that shifting demographics—including the tendency among those with advanced degrees to move away from where they grew up—our communities have grown more ideologically homogenous. More and more, we live among people who vote like we do. According to the most recent election data, nearly half of us—48%—reside in what’s known as “landslide county,” where 60% or more of the population votes for the same candidate. In 1976, that number was 27%, according to Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing, the authors of the 2008 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart.

I thought this was interesting. As higher educated people move to the big city seeking jobs, it gives more power to those left behind through the electoral college.

To add texture to demographic generalities—non-college educated whites versus minorities, rural versus urban—TIME sent three correspondents to five counties scattered across Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. They looked at counties that had voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 and flipped for Trump in 2016, but the individuals interviewed were met at random: A correctional officer waiting at an auto body shop; a young women off to pick up her kids at the school bus; a guy operating a table saw in his front yard.

Voices from Democratic Counties Where Trump Won Big

Democrats who voted for Trump were people who weren’t satisfied with what Obama did and they hated Hillary. Those types would have voted for a kangaroo if had the Republican nomination, same reasoning for most Republicans, pure hatred of the other side. A lot of those folks are regretting their emotional vote.

 

[Akivah]

A lot of those folks are regretting their emotional vote.

I agree. I emotionally voted for Hillary. I'll fix that for Trump's second term.

 

[idav]

I agree. I emotionally voted for Hillary. I'll fix that for Trump's second term.

Vote for the person representing the policies you agree with.

 

[Nous]

For decades, researchers pointed out that shifting demographics—including the tendency among those with advanced degrees to move away from where they grew up—our communities have grown more ideologically homogenous. More and more, we live among people who vote like we do. According to the most recent election data, nearly half of us—48%—reside in what’s known as “landslide county,” where 60% or more of the population votes for the same candidate. In 1976, that number was 27%, according to Bill Bishop and Robert Cushing, the authors of the 2008 book, The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart.

I thought this was interesting. As higher educated people move to the big city seeking jobs, it gives more power to those left behind through the electoral college.

To add texture to demographic generalities—non-college educated whites versus minorities, rural versus urban—TIME sent three correspondents to five counties scattered across Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. They looked at counties that had voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 and flipped for Trump in 2016, but the individuals interviewed were met at random: A correctional officer waiting at an auto body shop; a young women off to pick up her kids at the school bus; a guy operating a table saw in his front yard.

Voices from Democratic Counties Where Trump Won Big

My impression is that the Time article is kind of confused--or at least the title is. How is it determined that a county is a “Democratic county”?

Demographics are always changing, of course. However for several decades now it has been a fact that Democrats tend to inefficiently pack themselves into urban centers, making it easy to draw Congressional districts where large numbers of Democrats' votes are wasted, which results in the phenomenon called “partisan bias” (where the candidate of one party--in this case, Republican--is more likely to be elected with fewer votes). Packing and cracking are the two primary strategies for gerrymandering. This issue has become central in the court cases alleging partisan gerrymandering. See the informative Chen and Rodden paper, Unintentional Gerrymandering: Political Geography and Electoral Bias in Legislatures.

I was kind of curious how the electoral college affects elections.

A low population state like Wyoming gets 3 electoral votes. Gives these low pop areas more clout.

The organization promoting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has compiled an extensive document on the problems that arise from the state-winner-take-all method of electing the President by electors. Chapter 9: Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote Compact provides a good deal of information on vote weight and vote power (which are two different things--I get them confused). See, for instance, Section 9.4 Myths about Small States. The state-winner-take-all electoral method of electing the President produces inconsistent results with respect to vote weight (or vote power--I get them confused). Ultimately, it is the "battleground states," where the race is close, that are given the greatest influence in Presidential elections. Candidates focus almost all of their time, efforts, money and promises in these states, trying to win over just that small critical number of swing voters in order to win all of that state's electors.

 

[Shushersbedamned]

Why are Americans so obsessed with dividing people Into these classes? You look at a person in the face and see what's behind it and how they would manage as a president for your country.